Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- From: Chemiker <prussianblue28@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:22:15 -0600
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:21:58 -0000, "Charles E Hardwidge"
<boing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<nm5k@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:03197ba2-799d-4352-b261-9e50a44129a4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just to make everyone else feel bad cheap lenses (anything under $15,000)
lack edge to edge sharpness and have a nasty habit of breathing. Yup. That
Canon L glass you're so proud of cuz it's "pro" is a piece of shit. Not
critical unless you're shooting motion for big screen movie theatres.
The point is made that a lens passes or fails on the basis of the
fotog's expectations. In WA, for example, do you reefer the distortion
of "fisheye" or the unnatural stretch of a rectilinear? The difference
is easily seen when comparing the old Nikon 18mm f/4 non AI to the
modern AF versions at f/3.5 or better. There is little/no need for a
program like DxO with the "obsolete" f/4, which is still available
today. If you like the fisheye effect, there's always the 16mm Russian
Zenitar for about $250 new.
Another good case is the (really) crappy SamYang 500mm f/8 mirror,
sold under a variety of names, including Opteka and Phoenix. Flat,
hard to focus, lack of contrast, baaaad (!) bokeh, and no AF Available
for about $150. Having said all the bad stuff, it makes beautiful tele
shots of landscapes in fog. The mist means flat lighting, no bokeh,
muted colors, soft texture. Artistically beautiful results from a
cheap, crappy lens.
What I'm saying is, "If it floats your boat, go for it!"
FWIW: Consider print output and the limitations of the available
gamut. I have Nikons 995 and 4500 (Coolpix P&S), which are rated at
3.2 and 4.3 MP respectively. I also have tele2x, tele 3x, WA .62x and
Fisheye Convertor lenses for them. One would expect no more than
usable 4x6 prints, and you would get them. However, I put the same
images on a 37" HDTV and they knock your eyes out with detail and
vibrancy. No need to be ashamed of those pix at all! (And without a
lot of PS post-work!)
Hope this stirs the pudding a little.....
Alex,wishing the OP luck in his quest.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- From: Chemiker
- Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- References:
- Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- From: nm5k
- Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- From: Charles E Hardwidge
- Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Prev by Date: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Next by Date: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Previous by thread: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Next by thread: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Index(es):